Fake controversy for people who choose to turn a blind eye to the presidents inviting criminals into the white house

I guess that this is supposed to be a sick burn or something, but I'm being completely serious when I say that I don't even care about this stuff. I don't subscribe to any of the "guilt by association" baloney that seems to be a go-to favorite argument of some conservatives. Obama can call Bill Ayers on the phone and wish him a Merry Christmas, this won't result in my suspecting that he's a secret left-wing terrorist.

Not supposed to be a sick burn or any guilt by association for you, I don't care how you feel about it, that's not the point. The point is that people that think this is a "fake controversy" either don't understand the issue or do understand and choose not to care. That doesn't mean it's not significant because you choose not to care about it.

I think discussing tax policy with somebody that owes more than 3 million of taxes, has been convicted of tax evasion, and said that black people should not have to pay taxes is a big deal.

Fake controversy for people who choose to turn a blind eye to the presidents inviting criminals into the white house

I guess that this is supposed to be a sick burn or something, but I'm being completely serious when I say that I don't even care about this stuff. I don't subscribe to any of the "guilt by association" baloney that seems to be a go-to favorite argument of some conservatives. Obama can call Bill Ayers on the phone and wish him a Merry Christmas, this won't result in my suspecting that he's a secret left-wing terrorist.

Either way I don't like it a bit. Didn't like it when Bush met with Hannity, Ingraham, and other RW pundits, don't like it now. Journalists and politicians should have an adversarial relationship, not a cozy one. Another side effect of the rise of partisan media, I suppose.

I don't find anything wrong with it whatsoever, and that also goes for Bush. People like Hannity (and Sharpton) are not journalists, either. Real journalists would be insulted by the comparison.

Fake controversy for people who choose to turn a blind eye to the presidents inviting criminals into the white house

Dick Chaney was there all the time, and he shot a guy in the face, cuz he didn't like the way the guy kept referring soda as 'pop'.

Not supposed to be a sick burn or any guilt by association for you, I don't care how you feel about it, that's not the point. The point is that people that think this is a "fake controversy" either don't understand the issue or do understand and choose not to care. That doesn't mean it's not significant because you choose not to care about it.

No, that IS the point. If you're going to make the case that there is something wrong with Sharpton being invited to meet the POTUS, you have to do a lot better than this:

Quote

I think discussing tax policy with somebody that owes more than 3 million of taxes, has been convicted of tax evasion, and said that black people should not have to pay taxes is a big deal.

A big deal for what and because why? There will be no wailing and/or gnashing of teeth unless this 1) impacts something that's actually important, and 2) can be proven that it does so. I don't have any patience for the thing where "association with unsavory character B, means that Person A is [non sequitur]". Waste o' time.

Not supposed to be a sick burn or any guilt by association for you, I don't care how you feel about it, that's not the point. The point is that people that think this is a "fake controversy" either don't understand the issue or do understand and choose not to care. That doesn't mean it's not significant because you choose not to care about it.

No, that IS the point. If you're going to make the case that there is something wrong with Sharpton being invited to meet the POTUS, you have to do a lot better than this:

Quote

I think discussing tax policy with somebody that owes more than 3 million of taxes, has been convicted of tax evasion, and said that black people should not have to pay taxes is a big deal.

A big deal for what and because why? There will be no wailing and/or gnashing of teeth unless this 1) impacts something that's actually important, and 2) can be proven that it does so. I don't have any patience for the thing where "association with unsavory character B, means that Person A is [non sequitur]". Waste o' time.

Either way I don't like it a bit. Didn't like it when Bush met with Hannity, Ingraham, and other RW pundits, don't like it now. Journalists and politicians should have an adversarial relationship, not a cozy one. Another side effect of the rise of partisan media, I suppose.

I don't find anything wrong with it whatsoever, and that also goes for Bush. People like Hannity (and Sharpton) are not journalists, either. Real journalists would be insulted by the comparison.

Fake controversy for people who choose to turn a blind eye to the presidents inviting criminals into the white house

Dick Chaney was there all the time, and he shot a guy in the face, cuz he didn't like the way the guy kept referring soda as 'pop'.

That's where your wrong, it's not my job to make a case to those that will not change there stance regardless of what the facts are. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice and not my problem

So, I challenge you to stand behind the implications of what you say, and make the case that this actually has some specific impact on some particular important thing that someone might care about. Your response is to accuse me of being someone who will never change my stance regardless of the facts.

That's where your wrong, it's not my job to make a case to those that will not change there stance regardless of what the facts are. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice and not my problem

So, I challenge you to stand behind the implications of what you say, and make the case that this actually has some specific impact on some particular important thing that someone might care about. Your response is to accuse me of being someone who will never change my stance regardless of the facts.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Because the facts that I have laid out make the case for me, there is no point going further down that path. , that's not my job. You can choose not to accept the facts that's your right.

That's where your wrong, it's not my job to make a case to those that will not change there stance regardless of what the facts are. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice and not my problem

So, I challenge you to stand behind the implications of what you say, and make the case that this actually has some specific impact on some particular important thing that someone might care about. Your response is to accuse me of being someone who will never change my stance regardless of the facts.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Because the facts that I have laid out make the case for me, there is no point going further down that path. , that's not my job. You can choose not to accept the facts that's your right.

I think you're both being a little willfully obstinante. He's asking you why it is important who the president invites to the white house. Al Sharpton isn't the first guy with legal troubles that has been asked to dinner, and democrats and republicans have done similar things in the past.

The real question is, will it matter? And if you're saying yes it matters, the logical follow up is 'why'?

It seems to me that you're saying it matters because the president shouldn't associate with such people. Not because of any real-world tangible complications, but as a matter of decorum.

That's where your wrong, it's not my job to make a case to those that will not change there stance regardless of what the facts are. If you choose to ignore it that's your choice and not my problem

So, I challenge you to stand behind the implications of what you say, and make the case that this actually has some specific impact on some particular important thing that someone might care about. Your response is to accuse me of being someone who will never change my stance regardless of the facts.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Because the facts that I have laid out make the case for me, there is no point going further down that path. , that's not my job. You can choose not to accept the facts that's your right.

I think you're both being a little willfully obstinante. He's asking you why it is important who the president invites to the white house. Al Sharpton isn't the first guy with legal troubles that has been asked to dinner, and democrats and republicans have done similar things in the past.

The real question is, will it matter? And if you're saying yes it matters, the logical follow up is 'why'?

It seems to me that you're saying it matters because the president shouldn't associate with such people. Not because of any real-world tangible complications, but as a matter of decorum.

I'm saying it matters because the president shouldn't discuss policy or use a man as a mouthpiece for tax policy who, owes over 3 million dollars in taxes, has been convicted of tax evasion, and has said that black people should pay no taxes.

I don't care if he socializes with him, that's his choice, he's probably a nice enough guy.

This isn't really that hard to understand. The president should be talking to people who can give him the best advice. Sharpton brings nothing relevant to the table, therefore him being there is a waste of time.

Not only that, how can this president lecture the rich about not paying enough in taxes after taking advice from a tax dodger?

This isn't really that hard to understand. The president should be talking to people who can give him the best advice. Sharpton brings nothing relevant to the table, therefore him being there is a waste of time.

Not only that, how can this president lecture the rich about not paying enough in taxes after taking advice from a tax dodger?

It seems to me that presidential/political candidates, politicians and elected officials talk and listen to everyday people in the country all the time and take advice from them. Having an ear for what anybody and everybody has got to say is a good thing in my book, regardless of how much of a farce that person's image might be in certain circles.

That said, I don't like the idea of a President using the media as a PR office and inviting them in to discuss the best way to get his word out through the media. Media should report the news not make it.

I'm saying it matters because the president shouldn't discuss policy or use a man as a mouthpiece for tax policy who, owes over 3 million dollars in taxes, has been convicted of tax evasion, and has said that black people should pay no taxes.

That's the "it matters" argument, not the "why" argument. You evaded his question just like you did mine.

This isn't really that hard to understand. The president should be talking to people who can give him the best advice. Sharpton brings nothing relevant to the table, therefore him being there is a waste of time.

Where in any of this is it stated that the POTUS is taking advice from Sharpton?

Quote

Not only that, how can this president lecture the rich about not paying enough in taxes after taking advice from a tax dodger?

Very easily: he opens his mouth and he lectures people. He's good at it.

What's the issue here, again? We're still in the midst of this "association" thing.

That said, I don't like the idea of a President using the media as a PR office and inviting them in to discuss the best way to get his word out through the media. Media should report the news not make it.

"Media" is too broad a term. American Idol is media. If you mean journalists and news organizations, say that. And then realize that Al Sharpton is neither journalist nor news organization.